-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Time Travel/Bootstrap Paradox?
- Thread starter Neogaia777
- Start date
- Oct 10, 2011
- 24,668
- 5,553
- 46
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
It's a very, very simple question?
You really mean to tell me you don't understand the question really?
Just answer it already please. A simple yes, or no, will suffice.
Because it really is that simple really.
I'll repeat it again:
"Are any light distances that we are viewing from our present position, are they also that "old" or not, as viewed from our present position or not?"
Yes or No will suffice.
You guys seem to handle all of this other "stuff" just fine, so are you now going to tell me you're having a problem with "this" now really?
I mean, come on now, really?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Oct 10, 2011
- 24,668
- 5,553
- 46
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
The only way Mary, and an observer on the ground, can measure the same beam of light traveling at the same exact speed of light from both of their respective positions, (always a constant for everyone no matter what) is only if Mary's time is dilated and her length is contracted, in this example, by 50% times 2 for Mary, or stacked two times for Mary, for a total of 75%, but this means that her speed should be also 75% of c, and not 86.6%, or the math doesn't work right, and c is no longer a constant for either one, etc?
Upvote
0
- Oct 10, 2011
- 24,668
- 5,553
- 46
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
I don't see how you guys can seem to handle all of this other stuff just fine, but can't even understand the most basic of questions seen by or observed through a "child's eye", etc?
Unless you've lost that that is, which leaves you completely unable to ever question anything beyond what you've been taught ever, which is what I really think it/this is really, etc.
If it "sounds good", or "sounds always 100% sound" then don't ever dare to ask questions about it, right? This is what you are right now lacking by losing your "child eye", etc.
As for me, I will continue to grow, and learn, and study some more, but I will never, ever give up my child eye about any of it ever at all ever, etc.
God Bless.
Unless you've lost that that is, which leaves you completely unable to ever question anything beyond what you've been taught ever, which is what I really think it/this is really, etc.
If it "sounds good", or "sounds always 100% sound" then don't ever dare to ask questions about it, right? This is what you are right now lacking by losing your "child eye", etc.
As for me, I will continue to grow, and learn, and study some more, but I will never, ever give up my child eye about any of it ever at all ever, etc.
God Bless.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Once again, you haven't given the bacground of where you're coming from, which prompted your question.
I've answered it from what I think you might trying to ask and the answer is 'No' (because of expansion).
Upvote
0
I, for one, am not a child.
Are you?
Insults? Why?
Sounds like a child-like temper tantrum(?)
Upvote
0
- Oct 10, 2011
- 24,668
- 5,553
- 46
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
I think the answer is "yes", tell me why I am wrong.
Or explain how expansion makes you right and me wrong.
AI agrees with me BTW.
Regardless of where or how far expansion has taken it, what we are seeing of it is also that "old".
Tell me how you disagree, etc.
If anything, if expansion has carried it off even farther, then our view of it would be even older, if anything, etc. But I think science already accounts for this with the differences in the distances between both the known, and observable universes, which are already known, etc.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Oct 10, 2011
- 24,668
- 5,553
- 46
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
Take light minutes or light seconds or less, etc, is what we are seeing of it from our present position, is it also that "old"?
Yes or no or explain, etc.
Yes or no or explain, etc.
Upvote
0
Yttrium
Mad Scientist
- May 19, 2019
- 4,447
- 4,935
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- Single
I've been reading through your recent posts, and I've had a hard time figuring out what you're trying to ask. Your "simple questions" aren't worded well, and understanding not happening is.
This has probably been discussed before, but if we see light coming from an object three light minutes away, we're seeing that object as it was three minutes ago. The light itself doesn't age. From the light's perspective, it's at its origin and its destination at the same time, no matter how far it has traveled.
Upvote
0
This is classic Dunning Kruger stuff being unaware of your limitations in this discussion but projecting a level of understanding you do not possess.
In an observer’s frame of reference length contraction or time dilation is observed but not both, so your calculations are based on a faulty premise. Time dilation is measured by Frank the stationary twin, length contraction of the surroundings is measured by Mary.
The Minkowski diagram however is based on Frank's frame of reference where only time dilation of Mary's total trip time and the relativistic Doppler shifts for the outgoing and return journeys need to be considered.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Oct 10, 2011
- 24,668
- 5,553
- 46
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
If you could travel to it/jump to it in less than 1 second, how "old" would it be there?
Upvote
0
- Oct 10, 2011
- 24,668
- 5,553
- 46
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
Whatever, I don't care, you guys can have it, I'm done with this discussion for now.
Simple doesn't seem to be a thing you guys seem to be able to understand, so...?
So, bye for now.
Upvote
0
- Oct 10, 2011
- 24,668
- 5,553
- 46
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
If you could get there in less than 1 second, and what you were viewing of it was three minutes in the past, or as it was three minutes ago, then it would not be an additional three minutes after what you had viewed of it from where you were at three minutes ago, etc. Rethink it again please.
Upvote
0
- Oct 10, 2011
- 24,668
- 5,553
- 46
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
I'll continue to learn, and grow, and most importantly question what I am learning as I grow, etc, which is much, much more than I can say for the rest of you guys, etc, because you guys are pretty much stuck where you are, etc.
It is because of people like you that there will not ever be anymore new Einstein's, or Newton's for our time, just so you are aware of that, ok. And it's sad too, because I stand as living proof that you guys could do/be so very much "more", etc, but it's never going to happen though, etc, and I think that's a very sad thing indeed, etc.
Later, I guess.
Upvote
0
Yttrium
Mad Scientist
- May 19, 2019
- 4,447
- 4,935
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- Single
,,, What? I can't quite make sense of how the bolded part is worded.
I'm just going to stand by what I said. You get there, you ask someone about what you viewed, and they say yeah, that happened a few minutes ago.
Upvote
0
- Oct 10, 2011
- 24,668
- 5,553
- 46
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
Then you agree with me then that it would be three minutes ahead of what you just saw or just viewed when you got there in less than a second then? So what you just saw happened three minutes ago? So, would it have always been the same "age" there regardless of your having viewed it three minutes ago? So, what about much larger distances then? Would the same apply there? Yes or No?
Upvote
0
- Oct 10, 2011
- 24,668
- 5,553
- 46
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
My mistake in post #115 then if you agree with me about what I just said in post #118. I'm sorry, and I apologize, but we are getting increasingly frustrated here, etc. But that's not your fault, so I apologize, k.
I'll try to calm down, ok.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
